Dr PR

The problem with using a clip-on guide without having a template for guidance is that the spacing between lines can creep, especially on the ends. After a while the lines are not parallel to the water line, running high on one end or the other. I speak from experience! And that is why I always have a template that I can use for reference.

Mustafa, I thought your Pickle was an excellent build, but this one is a tour de force!

John, Any build that is finished is a good build! Santa Maria is a good choice for your second build. It was my first kit build back in 1969 (long before the Internet and Forums like this). It is a bit more complicated than your first build, and you should learn a few more tricks. But the masts and rigging are not nearly as complicated a later ships, especially the huge full rigged behemoths of the 1700s and 1800s! So you will learn rigging skills without learning the frustration and sheer boredom of rigging your 50th cannon or yet another sail. There are many useful books for ship modelling - and a lot that weren't helpful at all to me. But if you are having trouble distinguishing between futtocks and carlings may I suggest you look online for Falconer's Universal Dictionary of the Marine (1769). You can copy it off the Internet. It describes a lot of the arcane nautical terminology us ship modelers throw around to make it sound like we know what we are talking about.

Digitalis (Foxglove?), A lot of experienced builders prefer Titebond II so it is OK. White glue (Elmer's Glue-All) is probably cheaper. When you get to the rigging stage you might want to set some. It's greatest advantage is that it dries invisible without leaving a film or stain. That may be why they recommend it. If you got plans off the web site you might look at them to see if there is a drawing sheet (or two). You can take the file to a print shop and have the sheets printed to scale. As far as the CD goes, the kit may have been manufactured years ago when CD/DVD players were common, and has been sitting on the shelf somewhere since then. Good luck on your build. Don't let the kit's shortcomings prevent you from doing your best. And you should know from the very beginning that you will make mistakes, and your second ship model build will be a lot better than your first!

All right! Another schooner build!! You did a nice job on the planking.

Keith, I took one look at all the bead thingies on the bow decoration and wondered how you would carve them. Ball bearings! Great idea, and the resulting part is very nice!

This is how to make a ratline template and use it. 1. Measure the distance between the top of the deadeyes and the bottom of the trestletrees or crosstrees. 2. Cut a piece of paper to be this long on one side. 3. Put the paper behind your shrouds, with the bottom edge resting on the deadeyes. 4. Use a pencil to place a mark on the paper beside each of the shrouds at the top of the deadeyes. 5. Mark the top of the paper beside the forward and aft shroud lines. 6. Draw lines on the paper for the forward and aft shrouds. You really don't need lines for the other shrouds. 7. Now you have to think. Ratlines were typically spaced 12 to 16 inches (305 to 406 mm) apart. Now scale this distance to whatever scale your model is. For example, I am building at 1:48 scale, so I divide the real world distance by 48 to get 0.25 to 0.33 inches (6.35 to 8.5 mm) spacing for the ratlines on my model. Note: unless you are modelling a modern vessel there probably will be no record of the actual ratline spacing on the ship you are modelling, so pick a convenient spacing within the range you calculated. I will space them 5/16 inch (0.3125 inch) (7.9 mm) using a ruler marked in 1/16 inch increments.. 8. On your paper template draw horizontal lines parallel to the tops of the deadeyes at your chosen spacing. These mark where the ratlines will go. 9. Trim excess paper around your ratline template, leaving a narrow space outside the lines representing the fore and aft shrouds. 10. Tape the top of the template to the shrouds below the trestletrees/crosstrees. Clamp the bottom of the paper to the deadeyes. You could use tape, but you probably will want to release the bottom of the paper to get it out of your way while tying all the ratline knots. 11. Put on some soothing music, take a deep breath and don't even think about how many knots you will have to tie for just one set of shrouds! 12. Now tie ratlines at every level marked by horizontal lines on the template. Note: Some people clamp a small stick to the shrouds at the level of the ratline to be installed, using the template to set the position. Then they fold the template back out of the way and tie the knots above the stick. IMPORTANT! After all the knots are tied check the line against the template and move the knots as necessary to get the line in the correct position. Sloppy work here will make the model look BAD! It is a good idea to use a small brush to place a drop of diluted white glue (1:1 with water) on each knot as insurance to be sure the knot doesn't open or move on the ratline. The ratlines are tied with clove hitches (look it up). This brings the two ends out from the knot at the same level. Leave a slight "sag" in the line between shrouds - this takes some practice. You can make this sag permanent by wetting the line with diluted white glue or shellac (dries faster). On real ships the ends pf the ratline ropes had eyes spliced in them. The eyes were tied to the outer shrouds with small line. For all but the largest scale models this is unnecessary detail, and a LOT of extra work. I just use a simple overhand knot to tie the ratlines to the fore and aft shroud lines.

George, Agreed! On one of my earlier models I added the entire interior, including furniture, even though none of it was visible in the finished model. But I had the satisfaction of knowing it was there!

Wefalck, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) covered most of the western parts of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and northern California west of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. It was more abundant than grass (in acres covered). In the coastal rain forests trees grew to 15 feet (5 meters) diameter. The major industry was harvesting and exporting these trees to every large city from California to Alaska, and to Asia. Everything was made from Douglas fir, including ships (there isn't much iron ore on the west coast). When steam came along the hulls were still wooden. Likewise, when diesel came along they still built ships from wood. And timber harvesting is still a major industry even though most of the original forests have been harvested and replaced with plantations. In Oregon alone the land area growing timber (about 24 million acres) is greater than the entire area of many of our eastern States and some European countries! So yes, it is an abundant resource!

Looks like it might make a good small gear puller. I wonder if that is what it really was made for?

Keep in mind when people say "accurate" with respect to some rigging plan what is really meant is "I wonder if a ship was ever rigged this way." There was no "one way" for any type or rig, so it might be better to ask "Is there any reason why a ship might not have been rigged this way? Ships were not necessarily rigged just one way throughout the entire ship's life. There are many examples of ships that were re-rigged multiple times. So the "accurate" question becomes "When might the ship have been rigged this way." And the only real answer to any of these questions is "We don't know." Many plans for rigging a particular ship actually come from a model somewhere in a museum - Petersson used this method. But if you follow some of the threads on the Forum you will come across discussions of whether the model rigging is "accurate." Is it original, or has the model been "restored" changing the rigging from the original. Even restored "original" historic ships like the USS Constitution or HMS Victory have been restored several times, and there are always questions about whether the restored vessel is really "accurate." Do not get hung up on questions of "accuracy." We don't know for certain. So concentrate on "probable." Is it a reasonable way to rig a ship?

Mark, Regarding your measurements in post #11, it looks like you measured from forward of where the bulkheads come together at the bow to the top of the transom at the stern. This was a distance of about 18.5 inches (470 mm). This is not the length on deck! It looks like the length on deck is about 17.5 inches (445 mm). But I really can't tell where the deck planking would end at the bow or stern without the deck n place, but your measurements are pretty close to what the plans give. It looks like the stern of the Lynx/Mosquidobit had a "square tuck" and a "wing transom" below the deck level. Square tuck means that the hull planking ran back to the edge of the wing transom and terminated there with a sharp angle. Some vessels had a "round tuck" where the planking boards were curved up sharply at the stern to meet the transom. There are two types of wing transoms - flat and curved. The flat transom runs straight at an angle to the upper transom above the deck, down to where it intersects the deck planks. The curved version has a slight upward concave curvature from the upper transom down to the planking. The "golette" plan shows the wing transom to be in two parts/angles, both flat. The vessel is rigged in the European style (horizontal short spar on the main gaff topsail, and foresails all rigged to the fore mast top. Chapelle's plan and the "golette" plan both seem to show the upper transom to be flat vertically but with a bit of transverse curvature from side to side. Photos of the modern Lynx appear to show a flat transom with a curved upper edge (taffrail), and a single piece flat wing transom. There are a lot of photos of the modern Lynx on line. I don't know how accurate it is to the original Lynx. The Brits probably re-rigged the vessel as the Mosquitobit - they didn't like the very large tophamper on the American ships. They were dangerous to sail in high winds. Here are some highly enhanced pictures of the stern planking on the modern Lynx. They appear to show a flat wing transom. The upper transom could also be flat, with just the upper and lower edges curved upward in the center - hard to tell.

Mike, The curvature lengthwise is called sheer. It is lower midships than at the bow and stern. The transverse curvature (crosswise from port to starboard) is called camber. It is higher on the center line and lower at the hull sides. The resulting shape of the deck is a hyperboloid. That isn't a nautical term! How thick is the false deck? Is it plywood? I like Gary's idea of gluing it along the centerline first, curved along the sheer. But if you do this glue along the centerline only - you want the bulkheads to have a bit of freedom to move fore and aft at the outer edges so you can mate them up with the slots in the false deck. Personally, I wouldn't bother with the nails to try to hold the deck edges down. Pounding the nails into the bulkheads may rattle something loose. But the nails aren't useless - you can use them to simulate bolt heads. I would use rubber bands that are looped around the bottom of the keel and deck edges. LOTS of rubber bands. I used some 7 inch bands (the loop is 7 inches long without stretching the bands) and doubled them to hold the deck edges down on my MSI build. I used 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) plywood for the false deck and the bands held it down OK when I used enough of them. Sometimes it helps to put a piece of square dowel at the edge of the deck where the rubber band(s) comes up and over. This sandwiches the deck between the dowel and the top of the bulkhead. That seems to apply more downward force at the deck edge. It looks to me as if the bulkheads are pretty widely spaced. Too wide for a single planked hull. I have added extra bulkheads in between the widely spaced ones on some kit builds to ensure a far curvature in the planking. Another way is to fill the space between the bulkheads with balsa blocks. If it is a double planked hull it may not matter, but you want to be careful that you don't gat "flat spots" in the planking between the widely spaced bulkheads.

Dowmer, Lever (The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor) says the ropes were wormed and served. There are many other lines that could also be served (shrouds, stays, etc.) that I have not served. I don't have a serving machine, and the only lines I have served on this model are the long hook straps for the Burton tackles. If I was attempting a super accurate model like archjofo I would serve all of these lines. But this schooner build is just a learning experience for me, and certainly isn't an accurate model of any vessel. In fact, I have a list of 13 errors I have made so far - and the model isn't finished. I intend to list these mistakes in my final post so others may learn from them. In my opinion there are features of real ships that aren't worth repeating on a realistic model because the scale makes them impractical. Trenails is one such item. I served on three ships with wooden decks that had plugs of the same wood (teak) hammered in over the bolts that held the planks down, and even when standing with these plugs between my toes they were barely visible. In photos taken dozens of feet distant these details are invisible. I don't "do" trenails because they would not be visible in anything but the very largest scale models (1:10 or larger). But if you want to put trenails on your model just to accomplish it that's fine with me. Likewise, I don't care much for serving. But again that is the builder's choice. But if you insist on being truly accurate shouldn't you first worm the lines before serving, and pay attention to the different lays of the ropes that are being served? In the end, the only truly accurate rendition of a vessel is the vessel itself. Any model will have inaccuracies and omissions.

First of all, understand that there is no single "correct" way to rig any type of ship. No two ships were alike. So you won't find any book that tells you the right way to rig your model (but you may find some that tell the wrong way). So look for references that give examples of similar types of vessels and figure how they apply to your model. I second the recommendation for Lennarth Petersson's Rigging Period Fore-And-Aft Craft. The first section is for an English naval cutter. Darcy Lever's The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor (1808) is a very good book if you want to know more about how the real sailing ships work. He tells how to rig the masts and sails of a vessel from the deck up, and then tells you how to sail it. It is very useful for understanding how the rigging works. Lees' Masting and Rigging English Ships of War is a very good source of information about large square rigged vessels, but it says nothing about the smaller vessels, especially fore and aft vessels like cutters and schooners (the British did actually have many smaller fore and aft rigged "ships of war"). Wolfram zu Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models is a very general description of many of the features of sailing ships, often showing how these features changed over time. It is useful for understanding the nautical jargon. You can find Falconer's Universal Dictionary of the Marine (1769) on line. It will help you decipher the arcane and obsolete nautical terminology. **** I have posted a thread that discusses the rigging of fore-and-aft sailing vessels. I have tried to explain much of the terminology for masting, rigging and sails. You may find it useful. A more concise version was included in the Winter 2024 Nautical Research Journal, Vol. 69 No. 4, page 295. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=750865

Serpe, Take photos with your phone or camera and then transfer them to your computer somewhere you can find them. You may be able to connect the phone or camera to the computer with a USB cable and then access the pictures directly. When you start a comment on the Forum you will see the "Drag files here to attach, or choose files" message at the bottom of the window. If you have the forum window and the file location window both open you can just drag the files from the computer to the Forum window. Or you can use the "Choose files" option (click on it) to open the computer's files folders, select the folder, and then select the pictures. Either method will open thumbnail images of you pictures below the comments dialog box. First position the cursor where you want to place a picture in your comments. Then click on the thumbnail of the photo. This will place the picture into your comments. You can then edit the pictures by double clicking on the picture. You can resize the image and select "left justified" if you want. If you reduce the width of the photo and select "left justified" you can then type test to the right of the photo. Otherwise with no justification your text will go above or below the picture.

Mark, I'll be happy to help if I can. If it is a topic that might benefit everyone post it here. For other things you can contact me with a Forum message. As I said, the Lynx/Mosquidobit is one of my favorite ships. There are pictures of the reconstructed Lynx on the Internet that show how the plans were interpreted for the modern version of this vessel.

George, I planned the gaffs, yards and sails on my schooner build in a CAD program. But when I started attaching the finished sails to the finished gaffs and yards I found that the gaffs and yards were not quite long enough. So far they have all come together, but it took a bit of fiddling and the sails don't hang correctly. The main problem is the length of the cringles at the corners of the sails, and additional length of the ropes that attach to the cringles to pull the sails out to the ends of the yards and gaffs. All this adds up to at least half a cloth, or maybe 3/4. I allowed only about half as much when calculating the length of the gaffs and yards. Another problem I had was where the head of the gaff sails fit under the jaws of the gaff. The head of the sail needed a bit of a cutout. The mast hoops are pulling the sail to the mast, and the throat is being pulled to the eye bolt on the bottom of the gaff. The result is a wrinkle in the sail under the gaff jaws. None of this has prevented me from rigging the sails, but they are not perfect.

I have been preparing things for installing the fore topsail. I made the sail months ago, but there was still some rigging to attach before it could be hung on the mast. I attached the clue line blocks to the clews and placed two cringles on the foot of the sail for the buntline attachment points. Two thimbles were tied to the topsail yard for the buntlines to pass through. Then the topsail was fastened to the yard with robands. Two truss ropes were constructed and then tied around the course yard. Each truss was about 2 inches (50 mm) long, with an eye seized into each end. One eye was positioned above the yard. The other end of the truss was looped behind the yard and then up and over. Where it met itself the two parts were seized together above the yard. The long ends will loop behind the mast and then come back around and through the lower eye of the other truss. Hooks on the single blocks of the truss luff tackles will engage the free end eyes of the truss lines. At least that is the plan. I measured and calculated the truss rope lengths, but the test will come when I try to rig this on the mast! I finished the studding sail booms and slipped them into the irons on the course yard. A block was attached to the end of the studding sail booms. They are in the stowed position. I do not intend to rig these sails. I still need to add some rope on the inboard ends to fasten the booms to the yard. I think all the other blocks for the remaining lines are in place so the topsail yard and sail should be ready to install. But first the course yard will be hung and the lifts and braces put in place. Then the truss tackles will be hung and everything will be adjusted to hold the course yard in its place.

Three plank benders should be enough!

Mark, Good choice for a subject to model. I almost bashed my Albatros build as the Lynx/Mosquidobit. However, the picture of the model you posted has a lot of errors. Whoever built it knew nothing about the topsail schooners of the early 1800s! The rigging of the fore mast yards is just weird! The spreader yard (course yard) lifts are tied to the mast about halfway up the mast??? The topsail lifts are tied to the base of the topmast??? There are stunsail yards on the topgallant yard! The main gaff topsail spars are totally wrong. The jackyard on the gaff didn't appear until the late 1800s or early 1900s. The vertical spar for the head/luff appears to be tied to the topmast and not suspended by a halliard. The peak halliards are rigged incorrectly (not far enough out to the end of the gaffs). The pin rails on the bulwarks are in the wrong places and I don't see the stays for the bowsprit and jib boom. I would also check the hull dimensions. It looks to be too narrow. The beam was about 1/4 the length of the hull, and on the American two mast topsail schooners the widest part of the hull was forward close to the position of the fore mast, and not midships between the masts. This was because the square sail and fore sails rigging added more weight on the foremast than on the main mast. A caveat here is that some schooners also had topsails on the main mast, so the widest part of the beam would be closer to midships.

Richard, How deep into this rabbit hole do you want to go? For an extremely detailed rigging plan for British clippers see Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier, Brown, Son and Ferguson, Glasgow, 1972. Everything you ever wanted to know and a lot more! He describes every bit of the rigging in detail.

John, I was pretty nervous when starting my first plank on bulkhead model back in 1969 - the Billings Santa Maria. The instructions were very sketchy and I didn't have the Model Ship World Forum for advice! But I got the job done and it still looks pretty good today. Here is a tip for planking - go down a bit to see my "plank bending" tool in action. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/37060-uss-cape-msi-2-by-dr-pr-148-inshore-minesweeper/?do=findComment&comment=1075263 The little Mini Iron II (Clover No. 9100) is a quilting iron for seams. I saw it mentioned in another post on the Forum as a plank bending tool. But it is also perfect for ironing sail tablings, linings and bolt ropes after they have been glued. It is less cumbersome than a large iron and the small tip gets into tight spaces. It is basically a 40 Watt/120 Volt soldering iron with specialized ironing tips. It has three heat levels, low (200F/105C), medium (390F/200C) and high(580F/295C). They recommend the low setting for silk. It is on sale on Amazon for $19.00 right now (normally $25.00). You get a plank bender, sail making tool and a quilting iron all for the price of one! It is well worth the money!

There are several ring lights that are made for macro photography - I posted a description of one here: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/36412-ring-light/?do=findComment&comment=1040024 They have a variety of controls to dim/brighten the light, and I have seen at least one that allows the light color to be varied. But most of them are battery powered to be used in the field. You could modify one to be powered from an AC "wall wart" power supply, or just used a rechargeable battery to eliminate extra wiring. I once bought a cheap USB powered ring light that was large enough to fit around a cell phone, complete with a phone holder. It was intended to illuminate a person taking a selfie or on a video conference. You could vary the colors and brightness. There are all sorts of ring lights available on the Internet. **** No Idea - Pulse width modulation just means turning the light on and off quickly, with a variable on/off timing. The longer the light is on (with shorter off times) the brighter it is. The pulse timing is very short so you can't see the flicker, just brighter or dimmer light. The advantage of this is that the light is operated at full power while on, always producing the same color light whether bright or dim. Some lights change color between high power (bright) low power (dim), and that isn't good for many applications.

Keith, We tend to have high security around nukes - either the power plants or the bombs. On the Oklahoma City our nuclear spaces were locked and alarmed except one passage into the missile house. There was a Marine guard at the door. He had a list of people who were authorized to get in, and a set of ID badges that were issued to us when we entered. The Marine carried a 45 pistol and was authorized to shoot anyone who tried to get into the space who wasn't on the list. One day the 7th Fleer Chief of Staff was escorting a visiting Admiral around the ship and he saw the "Restricted Area" sign on the door. The Admiral decided to go in an have a look. Well, the Marine was a Private and not accustomed to greeting Admirals. He jumped up and saluted and the Admiral barged right past him. He was half way up the ladder into the missile house when he heard the guard shout "Stop or I will shoot!" He turned around and found himself looking down the barrel of a cocked 45, with a very nervous Private's finger on the trigger. So far, so good. The Private did exactly what he was trained to do, and fortunately the Admiral was smart enough to not try to bluff his way out of it. But no one had told the Private what to do after he caught an Admiral!